United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60276

Laudenia Elisabeth Castillo-Martinez; Jose Antonio 

Caballero-Castillo; Gerson David Caballero-Castillo; 

Claudia Julissa Caballero-Castillo, 

Petitioners,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A206 771 252

BIA No. A206 771 253

BIA No. A206 771 254

BIA No. A206 771 362

Before King, Higginson, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 14, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60276 Document: 00516013801 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2021
No. 20-60276

2

An Immigration Judge denied Petitioners’ application for asylum and 

withholding of removal, and the Board of Immigration Appeals subsequently 

dismissed Petitioners’ appeal. Petitioners now seek review of that order by 

the Board of Immigration Appeals. For the reasons that follow, we DENY 

the petition for review.

I.

After Laudenia Elisabeth Castillo-Martinez and her three children

(collectively, “Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Honduras, entered the 

United States without admission or parole, they were served with notices to 

appear and charged with removability pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).

After conceding removability, Castillo-Martinez filed an application 

for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 

Against Torture (“CAT”) on behalf of herself and her children. CastilloMartinez claimed membership in a particular social group defined as 

“Honduran common law married wom[e]n in a domestic abuse relationship 

unable to leave.” She explained that she left Honduras because her former 

partner was physically and verbally abusive, and that she had unsuccessfully 

tried to leave her partner before coming to the United States by first going to 

her mother’s home. Additionally, she explained that she did not report the 

abuse to the authorities because the closest police station was two and a half 

hours away and she did not have a landline or cellular reception. 

The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied the application, and CastilloMartinez appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA 

dismissed the appeal.1 This timely petition for review followed.

1 As part of the appeal, Castillo-Martinez also filed a motion for remand in order to 

propose a new, particular social group. The BIA, however, found that a remand was not 

Case: 20-60276 Document: 00516013801 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/14/2021
No. 20-60276

3

II.

We review the BIA’s decision and consider the IJ’s decision only to 

the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 

2018). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and legal 

determinations are reviewed de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 

444 (5th Cir. 2001). Under the substantial evidence standard, we may not 

overturn a factual finding unless the evidence compels a contrary result. 

Martinez-Lopez v. Barr, 943 F.3d 766, 769 (5th Cir. 2019).

III.

Castillo-Martinez challenges the BIA’s denial of her request for 

asylum and withholding of removal. 

To establish eligibility for asylum, an applicant must prove that she is 

unwilling or unable to return to her home country “because of persecution 

or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, 

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Sharma v. 

Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(42)(A)). And to prevail on a claim of past or future persecution, an 

applicant must establish, inter alia, that she suffered, or will suffer, 

persecution at the hands of the “government or forces that a government is 

unable or unwilling to control.” Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 109, 113 

(5th Cir. 2006).

warranted because Castillo-Martinez had failed to identify what new facts would be 

presented to the IJ on remand. Because Petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s denial of the 

motion to remand, they have abandoned review of that issue, and we do not address it 

further. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Case: 20-60276 Document: 00516013801 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/14/2021
No. 20-60276

4

“[A] particular social group must: (1) consist of persons who share a 

common immutable characteristic; (2) be defined with particularity; and (3) 

be socially visible or distinct within the society in question.” Gonzales-Veliz 

v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 229 (5th Cir. 2019) (citing Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & 

N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)). That said, a proposed social group cannot be 

defined in a circular manner and must exist independently of the suffered 

harm. Id. at 232. Because Castillo-Martinez’s proposed social group—

Honduran common law married women in a domestic abuse relationship 

unable to leave—is defined by the persecution of its members, it is not 

cognizable.And in the absence of a cognizable proposed social group, the BIA 

did not err in denying Petitioners’ request for asylum.

2 See Temaj-Augustin v. 

Garland, No. 20-60983, 2021 WL 3355172, at *1 (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2021). 

To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant has the burden of 

demonstrating that it is more likely than not that she will be persecuted on 

account of her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social 

group, or political opinion. Cantarero-Lagos v. Barr, 924 F.3d 145,149–50 (5th 

Cir. 2019).

2 Even if Castillo-Martinez’s proposed social group were cognizable, she has failed 

to demonstrate that the Honduran government is unable or unwilling to protect her. An 

applicant seeking to establish persecution based on violent conduct of a private actor must 

show that the government either condoned the private actions or was completely helpless 

to protect the victims. See Shehu v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 435, 437 (5th Cir. 2006); see also 

Gonzales-Veliz, 938 F.3d at 233–34. Castillo-Martinez has not done so. And indeed, 

although she introduced documentary evidence regarding the unwillingness of Honduran 

police to protect victims of domestic violence, this evidence does not compel a contrary 

result. See Martinez-Lopez, 943 F.3d at 769. Because Castillo-Martinez did not show that 

the Honduran government is unable or unwilling to protect her and her children, she cannot 

prevail on her claim of persecution. See Arevalo-Velasquez v. Whitaker, 752 F. App’x 200, 

201–02 (5th Cir. 2019).

Case: 20-60276 Document: 00516013801 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/14/2021
No. 20-60276

5

Despite Castillo-Martinez’s argument that the nexus requirement

between a protected ground and persecution is more relaxed for withholding 

of removal than it is for asylum, we have previously held to the contrary.

Indeed, in other cases where a petitioner has made this same argument, we 

have specifically explained “that applicants for withholding of removal must 

similarly show that a protected ground, including membership in a particular 

social group, was or will be ‘at least one central reason for persecuting the 

applicant.’” Quinteros-Hernandez v. Sessions, 740 F. App’x 57, 58 (5th Cir. 

2018) (quoting Revencu v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 2018)).

And so, because Castillo-Martinez “failed to establish the less 

stringent ‘well-founded fear’ standard of proof required for asylum relief,” 

she cannot meet the more stringent burden for obtaining withholding of 

removal. See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658–59 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting 

Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 253 (4th Cir. 2008)). Therefore,she is unable 

to demonstrate that the BIA erred in disposing of this claim. 

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. 

Case: 20-60276 Document: 00516013801 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/14/2021